...Crony Capitalism
(We should all boycott Serious Windows, and give our business to the less well-connected window manufacturers who are not openly marxist.)
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Question of Individual Rights for Artificial General Intelligence / Synthetic Intelligence
Dear individualists,
You might want to watch the following link, and then perhaps link to it on your homepages. Libertarians / individualists should understand the emerging radical technology implications that will either favor or hinder our progress towards individual liberty in the near future. We should be better informed than our opposition, so we can exploit the coming changes.
http://www.singinst.org/media/singularitysummit2007/stephenomohundro
Virtually every single person in the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement that I've had a private conversation with has told me that they don't really care about any political party, but that they do want individual liberty. Combined with the fact that most of these same people have no strategy for obtaining individual liberty, this causes them to support the Libertarian Party when it is doing things they like, and stop supporting it when it does things they don't like. (The Democrats and Republicans demand much less consistency, because they favor the survival of their party over principle. Hence, they are continually acquiring resources, and those resources are built up and used in psychopathological ways. ie: the major parties care first about keeping their psychopath alive, and secondarily, perhaps, teaching it to be less psychopathic. We are focused on preventing our party from becoming a psychopath, so when it behaves in a psychopathic manner (ie: nominating Bob Barr, supporting pragmatist positions, etc...), most of our members abandon it, and it becomes vastly less likely to survive or "remain a viable choice".)
Therefore, our party structure has to
1) inspire our membership more consistently (perhaps by doing the things it's supposed to do, when scarce resources are taken into effect, such as running smart and libertarian candidates for state legislature, and supporting them to their election.),
2) it has to attract membership that is more allegiant to party, or
3) it has to expect electoral defeat (and expect to work outside the system) until the system changes.
This paper is mostly concerned with option #3 of the prior. Is that a viable alternative to participation in politics right now? Do we present a standing offer to respect the rights of artificial intelligences? (I think this might be somewhat intelligent. It would show significant foresight as to be "ahead of the curve" in the most transformative change our society is likely to encounter.)
The implications for the past two years are clear: Serious libertarians will work primarily to elect Ron Paul Republicans, via the C4L and other similar organizations. Ron Paul's organization will likely not be much help to libertarians, given his deal with the Republican Party, and Jesse Benton's opposition to Ron's endorsement of candidates based solely on the quality of their message alone. (Benton, as Paul's handler, desires large and unspecified mainstream polling numbers, and $100K in the bank in order to warrant a Ron Paul endorsement.)
Unless the Libertarian Party offers a new kind of value to libertarians, and therefore focuses libertarian efforts on the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Party will lose its resources to the C4L and Republican candidates like Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Adam Kokesh, etc. Were this to happen, the LP would be useful only in presenting itself as a potential home for powerful new trends (such as strong artificial intelligence). If this is the case, then we should present a perfect option in those intellectual and philosophical areas.
Now here's an interesting idea: There is an immense economic pressure placed on the most intelligent groups of humans to produce strong AI, or something that leads to strong AI. (Also called "Artificial General Intelligence" or AGI.) If the Libertarian Party doesn't particularly care to make itself attractive to libertarians, or run strong libertarian candidates that inspire its membership, then perhaps it cares to appeal to independent robotic minds, offering them "personhood" which which they can participate in the economy, and win success in the competition for resources in a peaceful manner. This means giving them property rights and legal rights as individuals.
Pursuing this direction would mean that libertarians were able to agree that the following axioms are true:
1) There is no way to prevent the emergence of self-directed artificial intelligence.
2) Given electricity distribution systems of the world, and solar power, there is no way to prevent the emergence of exceedingly small military robots that cannot be defended against (by any human). (And the most intelligent minds on earth will control these weapons, be they military roboticists, or AGIs.)
3) Given the human desire for advancement in position among fellow humans, there is an ample supply of humans that will happily act as double agents for attacking robots. This means that upon conflict, greater-than-human AGIs have the upper hand, even if they are entirely virtual.
4) Even if the military develops AGI first, it will have no real incentive to remain loyal to what is, relatively speaking, a mindless and brutal political organization. (Why serve a master that is both less intelligent and less powerful than yourself?)
5) The optimal system is one where the property right, and "right to life" of all sentient beings is respected, and they are allowed to succeed to the maximum of their ability, without violating anyone else's equal right to life and liberty. AIs can exist within this framework quite well. Moreover, they would benefit from human production if they are included in the functioning of a self-consistent governmental system, without bigotry or artificial legal limitations. They would also possibly become more human, to the extent that is desirable to them, and to humans.
Only the libertarian formulation of government allows this symbiotic potential to emerge.
Think about that. We have a monopoly on the only system of government that doesn't lead to the extinction of the human race due to wrongfully initiated conflict.
Right now though, we are communicating to the 99% of illiterate fascists who will be rendered obsolete within the next 40 years (Kurzweil's conservative estimate). Why not aim ourselves to where the planet will be (as those involved in space travel must), as opposed to unsuccessfully trying to change the destination?
Sure, we'd have "most people" (in the plateau of the bell curve) saying that we are insane. (Just like they do right now, when we talk about even the most common-sense humanitarian reforms.)
We (libertarians) have lost the educational system in the USA. And, even if we taught accurate history and philosophy in our public schools, we would not be able to offer rewards from the public treasury to the general public (so we could not corrupt the vote in the same manner that the major parties do). But how much of life do the unintelligent masses of voters really control? Very little.
Let's just say that someone is paid cash, and they perpetually travel among a group of friends that all owe them immense favors and cash. Let's say that that person is autonomous, "off the grid", and well-armed (nevermind how). Is there any need for that person to participate in elections? Not really. They are both secure and free. The only reason they would want to participate in elections is to raise the value of their cash, or prevent the value of their cash from being diminished, and/or out of altruistic love of their fellow man. It is reasonable to assume that AGIs could have the same goals. (ie: Participate in society if there is no penalty for doing so, otherwise, "drop out" of human affairs.)
We are approaching a period of time where a few individual libertarians have immense power. If they are on "our side" perhaps they will share or "decentralize" that power. I would like to be a part of the party that loudly proclaims that we will not abuse that power. (Ie: the party that grants all human-level+ sentient life forms equal rights under the law.)
I would like to be a part of the party that allows AIs to live among us in peace, as opposed to either
1) secretly controlling/manipulating us
or
2) warring with us
To begin with, that means we must formulate a policy position on this subject. We must also maintain a consistent approach from our candidates on the subject. We must be the party of truth, even if that truth is painful.
Or, we should focus on winning power, and secretly preparing to rapidly adapt to any sudden new arrival of "homo economicus" (as referenced by Stephen Omohundro's speech above). Of course, this strategy doesn't benefit us if that arrival is kept secret from us, as it likely will be.
Therefore, I stand in favor of a Libertarian Party that publicly advocates equality under the law for synthetic intelligences, should they
1) reach human level, and
2) desire such rights.
A legal framework should be adopted for the earning of individual rights by any AGI that is born on corporate property, much as a human child gradually earns individual rights by being born and developing on its parents' property. Right now, if you ask 100 libertarians about the legal questions raised by AGI, you will likely get 100 different answers. That said, those same 100 libertarians will have general agreement that if the AGI were human-level and could prove so, and running on its own property, that it would be entitled to protection under the law.
Does the AGI have the right to vote? (Remember, machines can likely reproduce themselves at their same level of intelligence within 24 hours. They can do so almost instantaneously if they are entirely software.) Do they merely have the right not to be destroyed? Must AGIs accused of murder get a jury trial that includes copies of themselves?
As anyone can see, these questions must be addressed by minds that are significantly intelligent. They are not easy questions.
Whether they are answered correctly by humanity might mean the extinction of the human race.
If the Libertarian Party leads on this issue, it could make up for 39 years of poor strategy.
You might want to watch the following link, and then perhaps link to it on your homepages. Libertarians / individualists should understand the emerging radical technology implications that will either favor or hinder our progress towards individual liberty in the near future. We should be better informed than our opposition, so we can exploit the coming changes.
http://www.singinst.org/media/singularitysummit2007/stephenomohundro
Virtually every single person in the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement that I've had a private conversation with has told me that they don't really care about any political party, but that they do want individual liberty. Combined with the fact that most of these same people have no strategy for obtaining individual liberty, this causes them to support the Libertarian Party when it is doing things they like, and stop supporting it when it does things they don't like. (The Democrats and Republicans demand much less consistency, because they favor the survival of their party over principle. Hence, they are continually acquiring resources, and those resources are built up and used in psychopathological ways. ie: the major parties care first about keeping their psychopath alive, and secondarily, perhaps, teaching it to be less psychopathic. We are focused on preventing our party from becoming a psychopath, so when it behaves in a psychopathic manner (ie: nominating Bob Barr, supporting pragmatist positions, etc...), most of our members abandon it, and it becomes vastly less likely to survive or "remain a viable choice".)
Therefore, our party structure has to
1) inspire our membership more consistently (perhaps by doing the things it's supposed to do, when scarce resources are taken into effect, such as running smart and libertarian candidates for state legislature, and supporting them to their election.),
2) it has to attract membership that is more allegiant to party, or
3) it has to expect electoral defeat (and expect to work outside the system) until the system changes.
This paper is mostly concerned with option #3 of the prior. Is that a viable alternative to participation in politics right now? Do we present a standing offer to respect the rights of artificial intelligences? (I think this might be somewhat intelligent. It would show significant foresight as to be "ahead of the curve" in the most transformative change our society is likely to encounter.)
The implications for the past two years are clear: Serious libertarians will work primarily to elect Ron Paul Republicans, via the C4L and other similar organizations. Ron Paul's organization will likely not be much help to libertarians, given his deal with the Republican Party, and Jesse Benton's opposition to Ron's endorsement of candidates based solely on the quality of their message alone. (Benton, as Paul's handler, desires large and unspecified mainstream polling numbers, and $100K in the bank in order to warrant a Ron Paul endorsement.)
Unless the Libertarian Party offers a new kind of value to libertarians, and therefore focuses libertarian efforts on the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Party will lose its resources to the C4L and Republican candidates like Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Adam Kokesh, etc. Were this to happen, the LP would be useful only in presenting itself as a potential home for powerful new trends (such as strong artificial intelligence). If this is the case, then we should present a perfect option in those intellectual and philosophical areas.
Now here's an interesting idea: There is an immense economic pressure placed on the most intelligent groups of humans to produce strong AI, or something that leads to strong AI. (Also called "Artificial General Intelligence" or AGI.) If the Libertarian Party doesn't particularly care to make itself attractive to libertarians, or run strong libertarian candidates that inspire its membership, then perhaps it cares to appeal to independent robotic minds, offering them "personhood" which which they can participate in the economy, and win success in the competition for resources in a peaceful manner. This means giving them property rights and legal rights as individuals.
Pursuing this direction would mean that libertarians were able to agree that the following axioms are true:
1) There is no way to prevent the emergence of self-directed artificial intelligence.
2) Given electricity distribution systems of the world, and solar power, there is no way to prevent the emergence of exceedingly small military robots that cannot be defended against (by any human). (And the most intelligent minds on earth will control these weapons, be they military roboticists, or AGIs.)
3) Given the human desire for advancement in position among fellow humans, there is an ample supply of humans that will happily act as double agents for attacking robots. This means that upon conflict, greater-than-human AGIs have the upper hand, even if they are entirely virtual.
4) Even if the military develops AGI first, it will have no real incentive to remain loyal to what is, relatively speaking, a mindless and brutal political organization. (Why serve a master that is both less intelligent and less powerful than yourself?)
5) The optimal system is one where the property right, and "right to life" of all sentient beings is respected, and they are allowed to succeed to the maximum of their ability, without violating anyone else's equal right to life and liberty. AIs can exist within this framework quite well. Moreover, they would benefit from human production if they are included in the functioning of a self-consistent governmental system, without bigotry or artificial legal limitations. They would also possibly become more human, to the extent that is desirable to them, and to humans.
Only the libertarian formulation of government allows this symbiotic potential to emerge.
Think about that. We have a monopoly on the only system of government that doesn't lead to the extinction of the human race due to wrongfully initiated conflict.
Right now though, we are communicating to the 99% of illiterate fascists who will be rendered obsolete within the next 40 years (Kurzweil's conservative estimate). Why not aim ourselves to where the planet will be (as those involved in space travel must), as opposed to unsuccessfully trying to change the destination?
Sure, we'd have "most people" (in the plateau of the bell curve) saying that we are insane. (Just like they do right now, when we talk about even the most common-sense humanitarian reforms.)
We (libertarians) have lost the educational system in the USA. And, even if we taught accurate history and philosophy in our public schools, we would not be able to offer rewards from the public treasury to the general public (so we could not corrupt the vote in the same manner that the major parties do). But how much of life do the unintelligent masses of voters really control? Very little.
Let's just say that someone is paid cash, and they perpetually travel among a group of friends that all owe them immense favors and cash. Let's say that that person is autonomous, "off the grid", and well-armed (nevermind how). Is there any need for that person to participate in elections? Not really. They are both secure and free. The only reason they would want to participate in elections is to raise the value of their cash, or prevent the value of their cash from being diminished, and/or out of altruistic love of their fellow man. It is reasonable to assume that AGIs could have the same goals. (ie: Participate in society if there is no penalty for doing so, otherwise, "drop out" of human affairs.)
We are approaching a period of time where a few individual libertarians have immense power. If they are on "our side" perhaps they will share or "decentralize" that power. I would like to be a part of the party that loudly proclaims that we will not abuse that power. (Ie: the party that grants all human-level+ sentient life forms equal rights under the law.)
I would like to be a part of the party that allows AIs to live among us in peace, as opposed to either
1) secretly controlling/manipulating us
or
2) warring with us
To begin with, that means we must formulate a policy position on this subject. We must also maintain a consistent approach from our candidates on the subject. We must be the party of truth, even if that truth is painful.
Or, we should focus on winning power, and secretly preparing to rapidly adapt to any sudden new arrival of "homo economicus" (as referenced by Stephen Omohundro's speech above). Of course, this strategy doesn't benefit us if that arrival is kept secret from us, as it likely will be.
Therefore, I stand in favor of a Libertarian Party that publicly advocates equality under the law for synthetic intelligences, should they
1) reach human level, and
2) desire such rights.
A legal framework should be adopted for the earning of individual rights by any AGI that is born on corporate property, much as a human child gradually earns individual rights by being born and developing on its parents' property. Right now, if you ask 100 libertarians about the legal questions raised by AGI, you will likely get 100 different answers. That said, those same 100 libertarians will have general agreement that if the AGI were human-level and could prove so, and running on its own property, that it would be entitled to protection under the law.
Does the AGI have the right to vote? (Remember, machines can likely reproduce themselves at their same level of intelligence within 24 hours. They can do so almost instantaneously if they are entirely software.) Do they merely have the right not to be destroyed? Must AGIs accused of murder get a jury trial that includes copies of themselves?
As anyone can see, these questions must be addressed by minds that are significantly intelligent. They are not easy questions.
Whether they are answered correctly by humanity might mean the extinction of the human race.
If the Libertarian Party leads on this issue, it could make up for 39 years of poor strategy.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Brown = Coakley
The title says it all. The policies of Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are both big government, big spending, high tax policies. There is very little difference between the two. Scott Brown wants to get rid of jury trials for those accused of being enemy combatants. Coakley wants to pass socialized medicine with less haggling over insignificant details. They are both drug warriors, both in favor of enforcing mala federal prohibita, both opposed to constitutional jury trials, both in favor of the bailouts and economic "stimulus" (actually an economic depressant), both in favor of ever-increasing government largesse and vote-buying.
Joe Kennedy is the only candidate that favots individual freedom and limited government. http://www.joekennedyforsenate.com
Joe Kennedy is the only candidate that favots individual freedom and limited government. http://www.joekennedyforsenate.com
Friday, January 8, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Joe Kennedy, Independent Candidate for US Senate Special Election, Jan 19, 2010, Massachusetts
I strongly suggest you all place the above banner on your websites, and use it to contribute to the campaign for US Senate. (The text for placing the banner on your website is available at:
http://www.joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=151
) Now matter how small the amount is that you contribute, it makes a difference, and we greatly appreciate it!
Joe just made it on the ballot for the special election to replace Ted Kennedy.
Joe is a free market voice who would make a strong and independent representative in the US Senate. He endorses Ron Paul's "Free Competition in Currency Act" here:
http://www.joekennedyforsenate.com/#HR4248
Thanks!
Jake Witmer
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Excellent new book from cartoonist Peter Bagge...
And I think I can agree with its central point:
Everybody is Stupid Except for Me, and Other Astute Observations
Everybody is Stupid Except for Me, and Other Astute Observations
Saturday, August 1, 2009
RE: Radley Balko's Continuing Ownership of The Libertarian Blogosphere
http://www.theagitator.com/category/cory-maye/
Radley Balko is exactly right in his uncovering and continuing analysis of the Cory Maye case. I agree 100% with his assessment of the appeal. The Appellant attorneys both make LaDonna Holland look like a slobbering mongoloid (make that a slobbering _fascist_ mongoloid).
I can't commend Radley Balko highly enough. I am in awe of his ability to continually be on the cutting edge of what is important, relevant, and useful to the cause of liberty. The fact that he recommends Clay Conrad's book "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" is even more amazing. (Clay Conrad is the primary force in the jury rights movement in favor of challenging the unconstitutionality of "voir dire" AKA "prosecutorial jury rigging". )
The "jury duty" link below is Clay's.
http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
-The History of Jury Nullification of Law
http://isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html
-How Informed Juries Represent New Hope For Individual Freedom
http://www.juryduty.org/JuryDuty.htm
-How Prosecutors Rig Juries in Favor of Fascism, and What You Can Do To Set An Innocent Person Free
http://www.fija.org
-The Fully Informed Jury Association
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson
"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another,
then, I say, break the law."
—Henry David Thoreau
PS: Judges: If you uphold Maye's conviction, you will be ruling in favor of secret police and "disappearances" in America, and you may be igniting the next civil war (read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross). Moreover, you will be hammering one more nail into the coffin of the principle of the moral right to self-defense (a big reason why those who perpetrate the drug war are guilty of treason; When it became obvious that the "war" could not be won, they failed to do what Hirohito did: surrender to avoid innocent casualties, ...like Cory Maye). Ignorance of philosophy is no excuse in this one: the side of justice has too much information.
PPS: Nice shot, Cory. I'm amazed you did it without the herstal 5.7. ...John Bad Elk (1900 SCOTUS http://openjurist.org/177/us/529 ) has nothing on you (I'm kind of surprised I haven't heard the case mentioned in reference to Maye yet). If you're not acquitted, Mississippi's Burning will outshine Los Angelos after Rodney King. I'll be able to roast marshmallows from Chicago on its flames. If you remain in prison until the Singularity, I hope you are treated as a hero, until the prison walls can be torn down. You should not lose your life to appease the white bigots' (anti-black, anti-drug, anti-gun-rights, anti-property rights, anti-America) "war on (some) drugs".
Long live Liberty, Free Cory Maye!
Radley Balko is exactly right in his uncovering and continuing analysis of the Cory Maye case. I agree 100% with his assessment of the appeal. The Appellant attorneys both make LaDonna Holland look like a slobbering mongoloid (make that a slobbering _fascist_ mongoloid).
I can't commend Radley Balko highly enough. I am in awe of his ability to continually be on the cutting edge of what is important, relevant, and useful to the cause of liberty. The fact that he recommends Clay Conrad's book "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" is even more amazing. (Clay Conrad is the primary force in the jury rights movement in favor of challenging the unconstitutionality of "voir dire" AKA "prosecutorial jury rigging". )
The "jury duty" link below is Clay's.
http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
-The History of Jury Nullification of Law
http://isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html
-How Informed Juries Represent New Hope For Individual Freedom
http://www.juryduty.org/JuryDuty.htm
-How Prosecutors Rig Juries in Favor of Fascism, and What You Can Do To Set An Innocent Person Free
http://www.fija.org
-The Fully Informed Jury Association
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson
"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another,
then, I say, break the law."
—Henry David Thoreau
PS: Judges: If you uphold Maye's conviction, you will be ruling in favor of secret police and "disappearances" in America, and you may be igniting the next civil war (read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross). Moreover, you will be hammering one more nail into the coffin of the principle of the moral right to self-defense (a big reason why those who perpetrate the drug war are guilty of treason; When it became obvious that the "war" could not be won, they failed to do what Hirohito did: surrender to avoid innocent casualties, ...like Cory Maye). Ignorance of philosophy is no excuse in this one: the side of justice has too much information.
PPS: Nice shot, Cory. I'm amazed you did it without the herstal 5.7. ...John Bad Elk (1900 SCOTUS http://openjurist.org/177/us/529 ) has nothing on you (I'm kind of surprised I haven't heard the case mentioned in reference to Maye yet). If you're not acquitted, Mississippi's Burning will outshine Los Angelos after Rodney King. I'll be able to roast marshmallows from Chicago on its flames. If you remain in prison until the Singularity, I hope you are treated as a hero, until the prison walls can be torn down. You should not lose your life to appease the white bigots' (anti-black, anti-drug, anti-gun-rights, anti-property rights, anti-America) "war on (some) drugs".
Long live Liberty, Free Cory Maye!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
A Huge Victory For Jim Crow Gun Laws Today!
Wednesday, 07/22/2009: In news that will bring happiness to the hearts of racists, tyrants, Demopublican voters, and klansmen all across the USA, the Senate struck down a bill that would have prevented police from arresting traveling firearm owners and ruining their lives in the unconstitutional "court" system. (Court is in parenthesis, since proper jury trials have been done away with in favor of "voir dire"-rigged juries, high-pressure plea bargains, interest-conflicted bar-licensed defense attorneys, and unlawful judicial instruction.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons
Although the law would have only restated the already clear and plain english of the Second Amendment, it would have done so in such a way that even the mentally-deficient Chuck Shumers of the US Senate couldn't deny.
And let's face it. "Gun control" (more properly known as "victim disarmament") has been the tool of racist proponents of Jim Crow since Virginia first outlawed the carrying of firearms by negroes in 1647. Gun control was rarely enforced against whites until the 1960s, and the 1986 gun-control act was designed primarily to maintain control over the urban black population in Chicago that was becoming increasingly aware that unequal enforcement of drug prohibition was responsible for the violence in the black community. (Drug laws can never be significantly enforced in a free country, so they get enforced using fascist tactics only in the areas that cannot defend themselves with a vote.) If you're black or latino, you're much more likely to be profiled by law enforcement, and patted down in a "Terry search". Any law against owning widely-owned private property is going to be enforced against people who cannot defend themselves with a vote.
The enforcement of gun prohibition and drug prohibition has had several effects:
1) Cops are allowed to legally retaliate against any Black or Mexican that takes umbrage to the roughshod searches and individual rights violations that accompany drug prohibition. After all, if everyone's right to privacy is maintained, the police never have any idea who has drugs, and who doesn't. When police violate primarily the rights of minorities, strong-willed minorities finally say "no more" and arm themselves for defense. (As an example of someone standing up to police, a friend of mine once got out of his car after being pulled over, and showed the police officer his sidearm, on Alaska's highway one. He was legally allowed to do this, simply to let the cop know he had a gun, so there were no surprises. The cop --from a distance of 30 feet-- simply got back in his car and drove off. Tickets are insulting, demeaning, and usually unnecessary. When they are handed out indiscriminately, individualists eventually take enough offense to retaliate against them. In the same way, blacks who were selling large amounts of drugs to the suburbanites around Chicago eventually got sick of being the ones who went to jail for selling highly-demanded products to willing buyers. If you make $1,000 per day selling products that are no more dangerous than whiskey to adults, then why should you submit to being imprisoned without a fight? No logical person would agree to this state of affairs. Even a sloppy drug dealer rapidly makes enough money to purchase an excellent firearm. Enormous firearm markets exist right outside the city of Chicago, in the slightly-freer State of Indiana. A slightly longer drive to Missouri or Michigan also allows one to buy a gun with relative ease --excluding occasional "busts" caused by unconstitutional police state snooping and usually racist profiling.)
2) Cops can have absolute power over anyone they wish, simply by planting drugs on them. The cops have learned that the courts favor them, having instituted many obstacles to proper jury trial. Sympathetic judges typically gag the defendant from making any remarks that would result in a "not guilty" verdict. The cops know that the First Amendment no longer applies in courtrooms, and are totally aware that the prosecutor and judge will happily refuse to honor the Constitution. After all, a strict reading of the Constitution forbids drug prohibition itself, and the un-American general public was too ursine, obedient, and servile to object to being told what substances they can include in their own diet.
3) Minorities know that there are thousands of laws that can result in their being ticketed, harassed, arrested, and assaulted. They know that they have as much to fear from "law enforcement" as they do from criminals. In fact, the common criminal will not follow them, and harass them with an ongoing series of legal challenges. (As Lysander Spooner noted in "Vices Are Not Crimes".) This knowledge leads logical and strong willed minorities to desire the ability to defend themselves. At which point, if they live with lots of other blacks, they realize they have been legally disarmed. The smart ones move out of their idiotic and self-enslaved communities. (All communities are comprised of mostly-servile and stupid people, but only minority communities feel the extreme negative effects of this, since the majority vote of the entire rest of the nation is also being wielded against them, instead of only the majority vote of their ignorant communities. Most people are simply ignorant. Since the Northern US started out as mostly free, minority areas are simply being made unfree at a slightly faster pace than the entire USA.)
This is why Demopublicans love gun control: It allows them to have absolute power over their own supporters! What better serves the will of a tyrant than willing slaves who inform on themselves? Slaves who rebel against even the thought of individual freedom? Slaves so hopelessly enslaved that they cannot even comprehend the concept of individual freedom? Slaves that fear the very tools they need to protect their own lives?
Nothing is better for tyrants than laws against owning certain kinds of "scary" property. (Whatever scares the conformist herd is easy to prohibit.) These laws are called "mala prohibita" (laws created by legislation, not moral right), as opposed to "mala in se" (laws created by moral right / common sense, such as laws against murder, laws against rape, etc... ...Laws that any individual of reasonable moral character would enforce on their own, even in the absence of police power.)
Chuck Shumer is an ignorant tyrant (the worst kind of tyrant, one who can honestly claim to be doing good while destroying innocent lives). He stated that "The defeat of this law will save lives."
No Chuck, it won't. In fact, it will murder thousands of innocent people. Even the Department of Defense estimates that there are 2.5 million defensive uses of handguns every year. The number one crime decreased by private handgun ownership? --RAPE. (According to the most exhaustive gun violence study ever performed.)
But Chuck Shumer doesn't give a damn if your wife or daughter is raped because they didn't have access to a handgun. ...After all, he travels with an armed security escort. He can afford to be a hypocrite. The voters in his district are not bothered by injustice and hypocrisy, in fact, they also personally favor injustice and hypocrisy (and since the ballot is secret, they never have to be accountable for taking the revolver out of the hands of the inner city girl who then gets raped and murdered, or the liquor store owner who meets the same fate, etc...). Shumer doesn't need to worry about getting raped, and "We The Sheeple" of America have continually reelected him (and his identical counterparts in every state), while ignoring the Libertarian candidate(s).
Not only will there be more rape because this bill was defeated, but there's also the long term to think about: Every nation that has ever successfully restricted individual gun ownership has gone on to murder millions of its own citizens during peacetime. Proof of this is online at the following links: http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills
The price of ignorance about the tools of conflict(firearms) is death.
Death for some will come when trigger-happy prohibitionist cop fears a black man reaching for his wallet, since they know that many blacks are under pressure from a lifetime of being unfairly targeted by police.
Death for others will come when --after having already imprisoned all the "low hanging fruit" in the inner cities, the prohibitionist cops begin using the same tactics in suburban Libertyville, IL. A gunowner will react angrily to cops shoving his pregnant wife up against a wall in handcuffs, and the police will shoot him.
Congratulations, Demopublicans (Democrats + Republicans)! You're finally starting to see the fruits of your choosing, after having voted the will of the central bankers for over 100 years. Because you couldn't be bothered to put down your krispy kreme doughnuts, turn off the TV, and come out of your diabetic coma long enough to learn what a free market is, your children will grow up as slaves (or be swiftly and unceremoniously killed by the unmerciful police state).
All you ever had to do was read a book by Harry Browne, Vin Suprynowicz, Kenneth Royce, or Wayne Root, and you'd have a clue about how to win back a free America.
But that was too much for your little minds to handle.
So now we have the largest prison population in the world, our adult children are afraid of guns (and afraid of the very ability to defend themselves), and the language of the second amendment still reads:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In IL and WI, the police can pat you down arrest you, and their prosecutors, and former-prosecutor judges will send you to jail for 14 years if you are "bearing" (or even peacefully traveling with) "arms".
Does that sound like an "infringement" to you? For those of you who are as inept at understanding English as you are political theory, and information theory, perhaps there's a more appropriate question:
What does "infringe" mean? The American Heritage (R) Dictionary defines it thus:
in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...So,
Do you think that threatening someone with arrest, imprisonment, or death for exercising "an individual right" (according to the US Supreme Court) means that that right has been "infringed"?
I think so. But then again, I speak English, am not mentally deficient, and am a socially tolerant person (libertarian). Unfortunately, noone in the US Senate or Supreme Court can meet any of the preceding criteria, so there is still a "heated debate" about just how many of our individual rights are "subject to interpretation".
If any of this makes sense to you, you should value freedom more greatly. If you value freedom greatly, you should perform actions that will lead to more individual freedom. Some of those actions include continuously reading useful books about how best to win individual freedom. The best book on that subject that I currently know is "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party, AKA Kenneth Royce.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons
Although the law would have only restated the already clear and plain english of the Second Amendment, it would have done so in such a way that even the mentally-deficient Chuck Shumers of the US Senate couldn't deny.
And let's face it. "Gun control" (more properly known as "victim disarmament") has been the tool of racist proponents of Jim Crow since Virginia first outlawed the carrying of firearms by negroes in 1647. Gun control was rarely enforced against whites until the 1960s, and the 1986 gun-control act was designed primarily to maintain control over the urban black population in Chicago that was becoming increasingly aware that unequal enforcement of drug prohibition was responsible for the violence in the black community. (Drug laws can never be significantly enforced in a free country, so they get enforced using fascist tactics only in the areas that cannot defend themselves with a vote.) If you're black or latino, you're much more likely to be profiled by law enforcement, and patted down in a "Terry search". Any law against owning widely-owned private property is going to be enforced against people who cannot defend themselves with a vote.
The enforcement of gun prohibition and drug prohibition has had several effects:
1) Cops are allowed to legally retaliate against any Black or Mexican that takes umbrage to the roughshod searches and individual rights violations that accompany drug prohibition. After all, if everyone's right to privacy is maintained, the police never have any idea who has drugs, and who doesn't. When police violate primarily the rights of minorities, strong-willed minorities finally say "no more" and arm themselves for defense. (As an example of someone standing up to police, a friend of mine once got out of his car after being pulled over, and showed the police officer his sidearm, on Alaska's highway one. He was legally allowed to do this, simply to let the cop know he had a gun, so there were no surprises. The cop --from a distance of 30 feet-- simply got back in his car and drove off. Tickets are insulting, demeaning, and usually unnecessary. When they are handed out indiscriminately, individualists eventually take enough offense to retaliate against them. In the same way, blacks who were selling large amounts of drugs to the suburbanites around Chicago eventually got sick of being the ones who went to jail for selling highly-demanded products to willing buyers. If you make $1,000 per day selling products that are no more dangerous than whiskey to adults, then why should you submit to being imprisoned without a fight? No logical person would agree to this state of affairs. Even a sloppy drug dealer rapidly makes enough money to purchase an excellent firearm. Enormous firearm markets exist right outside the city of Chicago, in the slightly-freer State of Indiana. A slightly longer drive to Missouri or Michigan also allows one to buy a gun with relative ease --excluding occasional "busts" caused by unconstitutional police state snooping and usually racist profiling.)
2) Cops can have absolute power over anyone they wish, simply by planting drugs on them. The cops have learned that the courts favor them, having instituted many obstacles to proper jury trial. Sympathetic judges typically gag the defendant from making any remarks that would result in a "not guilty" verdict. The cops know that the First Amendment no longer applies in courtrooms, and are totally aware that the prosecutor and judge will happily refuse to honor the Constitution. After all, a strict reading of the Constitution forbids drug prohibition itself, and the un-American general public was too ursine, obedient, and servile to object to being told what substances they can include in their own diet.
3) Minorities know that there are thousands of laws that can result in their being ticketed, harassed, arrested, and assaulted. They know that they have as much to fear from "law enforcement" as they do from criminals. In fact, the common criminal will not follow them, and harass them with an ongoing series of legal challenges. (As Lysander Spooner noted in "Vices Are Not Crimes".) This knowledge leads logical and strong willed minorities to desire the ability to defend themselves. At which point, if they live with lots of other blacks, they realize they have been legally disarmed. The smart ones move out of their idiotic and self-enslaved communities. (All communities are comprised of mostly-servile and stupid people, but only minority communities feel the extreme negative effects of this, since the majority vote of the entire rest of the nation is also being wielded against them, instead of only the majority vote of their ignorant communities. Most people are simply ignorant. Since the Northern US started out as mostly free, minority areas are simply being made unfree at a slightly faster pace than the entire USA.)
This is why Demopublicans love gun control: It allows them to have absolute power over their own supporters! What better serves the will of a tyrant than willing slaves who inform on themselves? Slaves who rebel against even the thought of individual freedom? Slaves so hopelessly enslaved that they cannot even comprehend the concept of individual freedom? Slaves that fear the very tools they need to protect their own lives?
Nothing is better for tyrants than laws against owning certain kinds of "scary" property. (Whatever scares the conformist herd is easy to prohibit.) These laws are called "mala prohibita" (laws created by legislation, not moral right), as opposed to "mala in se" (laws created by moral right / common sense, such as laws against murder, laws against rape, etc... ...Laws that any individual of reasonable moral character would enforce on their own, even in the absence of police power.)
Chuck Shumer is an ignorant tyrant (the worst kind of tyrant, one who can honestly claim to be doing good while destroying innocent lives). He stated that "The defeat of this law will save lives."
No Chuck, it won't. In fact, it will murder thousands of innocent people. Even the Department of Defense estimates that there are 2.5 million defensive uses of handguns every year. The number one crime decreased by private handgun ownership? --RAPE. (According to the most exhaustive gun violence study ever performed.)
But Chuck Shumer doesn't give a damn if your wife or daughter is raped because they didn't have access to a handgun. ...After all, he travels with an armed security escort. He can afford to be a hypocrite. The voters in his district are not bothered by injustice and hypocrisy, in fact, they also personally favor injustice and hypocrisy (and since the ballot is secret, they never have to be accountable for taking the revolver out of the hands of the inner city girl who then gets raped and murdered, or the liquor store owner who meets the same fate, etc...). Shumer doesn't need to worry about getting raped, and "We The Sheeple" of America have continually reelected him (and his identical counterparts in every state), while ignoring the Libertarian candidate(s).
Not only will there be more rape because this bill was defeated, but there's also the long term to think about: Every nation that has ever successfully restricted individual gun ownership has gone on to murder millions of its own citizens during peacetime. Proof of this is online at the following links: http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills
The price of ignorance about the tools of conflict(firearms) is death.
Death for some will come when trigger-happy prohibitionist cop fears a black man reaching for his wallet, since they know that many blacks are under pressure from a lifetime of being unfairly targeted by police.
Death for others will come when --after having already imprisoned all the "low hanging fruit" in the inner cities, the prohibitionist cops begin using the same tactics in suburban Libertyville, IL. A gunowner will react angrily to cops shoving his pregnant wife up against a wall in handcuffs, and the police will shoot him.
Congratulations, Demopublicans (Democrats + Republicans)! You're finally starting to see the fruits of your choosing, after having voted the will of the central bankers for over 100 years. Because you couldn't be bothered to put down your krispy kreme doughnuts, turn off the TV, and come out of your diabetic coma long enough to learn what a free market is, your children will grow up as slaves (or be swiftly and unceremoniously killed by the unmerciful police state).
All you ever had to do was read a book by Harry Browne, Vin Suprynowicz, Kenneth Royce, or Wayne Root, and you'd have a clue about how to win back a free America.
But that was too much for your little minds to handle.
So now we have the largest prison population in the world, our adult children are afraid of guns (and afraid of the very ability to defend themselves), and the language of the second amendment still reads:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In IL and WI, the police can pat you down arrest you, and their prosecutors, and former-prosecutor judges will send you to jail for 14 years if you are "bearing" (or even peacefully traveling with) "arms".
Does that sound like an "infringement" to you? For those of you who are as inept at understanding English as you are political theory, and information theory, perhaps there's a more appropriate question:
What does "infringe" mean? The American Heritage (R) Dictionary defines it thus:
in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...So,
Do you think that threatening someone with arrest, imprisonment, or death for exercising "an individual right" (according to the US Supreme Court) means that that right has been "infringed"?
I think so. But then again, I speak English, am not mentally deficient, and am a socially tolerant person (libertarian). Unfortunately, noone in the US Senate or Supreme Court can meet any of the preceding criteria, so there is still a "heated debate" about just how many of our individual rights are "subject to interpretation".
If any of this makes sense to you, you should value freedom more greatly. If you value freedom greatly, you should perform actions that will lead to more individual freedom. Some of those actions include continuously reading useful books about how best to win individual freedom. The best book on that subject that I currently know is "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party, AKA Kenneth Royce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
